AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND

1519 readers

199 users here now

This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

♦ ♦ ♦

RULES

❶ Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

❷ Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.

❸ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.

❹ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.

❺ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.

❻ Don't be a dick.

Please also abide by the instance rules.

♦ ♦ ♦

Can't get enough? Visit my blog.

♦ ♦ ♦

Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.

$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

297

Not a generational problem 😊 (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It’s a systemic issue, and economic issue that’s certainly influenced by people, but if you gave the current generation the same economic advantages the boomers had, their scale would would be either the same or similar at the same ages.

... that's what a generational issue means.

Generations aren’t the same as eras, though. Generations exist within eras, but eras don’t travel with the generation in this context.

Clearly they do. The era is over, but the advantages persist in the generation.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

They were in control of the era and ended it once they figured out some of the benefits they took for granted might end up going to their children

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Then choose whatever terms you prefer, I ain't het up over that.

The point is that the same people or the generation that's at the bottom now would have equally profited from the previous circumstances, and the decline would have led to the same place for their children and grandchildren because the pressures involved were systemic, not a product of the individuals choices without that system.

I'm saying that people are people, and trying to pin the cause of a trend onto the people of a generation without the context of the systemic effects also being in the chart is misleading.